FrankYang0529 commented on PR #20000:
URL: https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/20000#issuecomment-3595983833

   Hi @dajac, following is summary for trunk & PR comparison. The difference 
between trunk and PR for non-rackaware is from checking whether to use rack 
awareness strategy (Step 1). Current PR implementation needs `useRackStrategy` 
variable to skip rack awareness check if users don't need it.
   
   The performance check for step 1 takes about `95.415 ± 2.039 ms/op`. If we 
add this part to trunk result, the final results between trunk and PR for 
non-rackaware are similar. Most of the cost are used to collect 
`allMemberRacks`, `partitionRacks`, and `allPartitionRacks`. I'm wondering do 
we want to add another configuration to consumer group to indicate whether to 
enable rack aware check? If user doesn't need rack aware calculation, we can 
get similar result as trunk branch.
   
   
https://github.com/apache/kafka/pull/20000/files#diff-a1046bd3b6306ea23bdb5cba83c0302d8137ed9bc0d6ecc1368caf4bbca2612dR116-R133
   
   | assignmentType | memberCount | partitionsToMemberRatio | subscriptionType 
| topicCount | Mode | Cnt | Trunk & Non-RackAware | PR & Non-RackAware     | PR 
& RackAware         |
   
|----------------|-------------|-------------------------|------------------|------------|------|-----|-----------------------|------------------------|------------------------|
   | FULL           | 10000       | 50                      | HOMOGENEOUS      
| 1000       | avgt | 3   | 12.305 ± 1.321 ms/op  | 110.267 ± 20.565 ms/op | 
293.988 ± 38.140 ms/op |
   | INCREMENTAL    | 10000       | 50                      | HOMOGENEOUS      
| 1000       | avgt | 3   | 5.778 ± 0.643 ms/op   | 101.283 ± 1.971 ms/op  | 
158.401 ± 20.146 ms/op |


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]

Reply via email to